Muslim Woman Goes to Jail Cause She Didn't Take Headscarf Off

[Sylvia727]

If the judge asks an Islamic woman to remove her headscarf, a Catholic nun to remove her wimple, and a Jewish man to remove his yarmulke, then he is not being racist. He is, however, still wrong. Allowing exceptions to this policy is a simple and hassle-free concession to people's religious beliefs. If the clothing is a security issue, the person can be searched by a guard in private. By refusing to grant these exceptions, the judge is in essence saying "The court's notion of etiquette is more important than your religion and your right to express that religion." Headgear is not disruptive, and it does not infringe on anyone else. To uphold such a trivial concern over such deep-seated religious convictions is to spit in the faces of those who hold those beliefs.

As MMTM said, a burkha is a different matter, since it conceals the face. I could go either way on allowing one in a courtroom. For situations where a visual of the face is required, burkhas would have to be prohibited. Not having frequented many courtrooms, I don't if court officials need to see the faces of the audience or not. There was a case in Florida, in 2003, in which the State Supreme Court ruled that a Muslim woman was required to remove her veil for a photograph on her driver's license. Since the whole point of a photo ID is to accurately identify the person, and since driving is a privilege not a right, I can't see that her rights were violated.

[MadMike]

How is discriminating against a religion racism?

OK, maybe I used to wrong word. I guess I should have said "religious discrimination."

There was a case in Florida, in 2003, in which the State Supreme Court ruled that a Muslim woman was required to remove her veil for a photograph on her driver's license. Since the whole point of a photo ID is to accurately identify the person, and since driving is a privilege not a right, I can't see that her rights were violated.

I could be wrong, but isn't it possible to get a drivers license without a photo, if your religion doesn't allow you to be photographed? Or has that changed?

[AdminAssistant]

I could be wrong, but isn't it possible to get a drivers license without a photo, if your religion doesn't allow you to be photographed? Or has that changed?

Some states allow ID's without photos, in particular for Amish/Mennonite communities that do not believe in photography. However, I know Missouri recently mandated photos.

[Greenday]

I'm pretty sure PA and NJ require photos for licenses. I know NJ requires it for a fact.

[AdminAssistant]

I'm pretty sure PA and NJ require photos for licenses. I know NJ requires it for a fact.

Is that for a Driver's License or a State-Issued (non-driver) ID? I'm pretty sure that the Missouri law said that photo was required for a driver's license but not an ID.

[Greenday]

I've never seen a state ID.

[BlaqueKatt]

apparently most missed the last line of the article

"Hall said Valentine, an insurance underwriter, told the bailiff that she had been in courtrooms before with the scarf on and that removing it would be a religious violation. When she turned to leave and uttered an expletive, Hall said a bailiff handcuffed her and took her before the judge."


it was not about the refusal to remove headgear-she was leaving and uttered an expletive at the bailiff-SHE WAS NOT EVEN IN THE COURTROOM YET.

She was leaving and cursed at a court officer-she got her right to free speech and the consequences for it-but both the media and her would rather say "I'm being persecuted for my religion" If she had left quietly I highly doubt she would've been arrested. Not sure what the Koran says about swearing/expletives-and they did not say what it was-maybe it was a racist remark? Maybe it was something very offensive to the officer?

[Slytovhand]

I saw it, BK, but I thought we were on the general subject of headwear??

Anyway - I find it interesting that the expletive was 'uttered' rather than 'said' or 'thrown' - as in, not specifically directed towards anyone. Also, she wasn't in the courtroom, as you pointed out.. how can it be contempt of court if you're not actually in the court???

I'd say it's still pretty heavy-handed - depending on the actual situation. Given she's worn it in courts before, it was a judgement call on behalf of the bailiff (or judge, depending on who said what), which does seem to indicate an inappropriate call (which comes down to what ppl have been saying - bad 'policy').

[Rapscallion]

Just had a look at the MSNBC article.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28278572/

That court has a policy of no headgear. As long as it's carried out equally to anyone and everyone with headgear, then fine. She had been in courtrooms before, apparently, but not necessarily in the same building.

The voting on there is about 52% to 48%, slightly in favour of the judge.

I'm 50/50 on this. On the grounds of security for concealed weapons, though, I would lean towards an equal policy of headgear removal provided that it is applied to everyone.

Raspcallion

[machinest]

The trouble is that for this to be fair is that the significance of removing your headgear is far greater for a Muslim, a Jew or other religious person than for a Christian or non religious person .A closer to neutral requirement would be that all persons removed any visible sign of religious affiliation.

[Boozy]

Security concerns might have been rectified by a quick pat-down and a pass through a metal detector. And I don't care what religion you are, if you can't show you're not carrying a weapon, you can't enter a courtroom.

But after that, why couldn't general common sense apply? It is considered disrespectful to wear head coverings in a courtroom. But it is considered a serious religious violation by some Muslim women to remove their hajib. Weighing the feelings on either side, I'd have allowed the woman to wear the head-covering.

[Rapscallion]

Allowing one religion to wear the covering has the problem of a situation where one side is seen to get preferential treatment. That causes hostility towards them.

Rapscallion

[Greenday]

It's because here in Western society, wearing a hat inside is a sign of disrespect. In the Middle East, that doesn't hold true. So now we are forcing our social norms on other people.

[Pedersen]

It's because here in Western society, wearing a hat inside is a sign of disrespect. In the Middle East, that doesn't hold true. So now we are forcing our social norms on other people [B]who have moved into our society[B].

There, fixed that for you.

[Rapscallion]

Nationality is defined (generally) within a region, but should culture be the same?

Rapscallion